A district consumer commission in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, has issued a significant order against a cigarette manufacturer and a local retailer. They have been directed to jointly deposit ₹10 lakh into the Consumer Welfare Fund after a customer was charged ₹20 above the maximum retail price (MRP) for a packet of cigarettes.
The ruling stems from a complaint filed by a customer who, on January 29, 2026, purchased a packet of Classic brand cigarettes from a shop in Aligarh. Despite the packet displaying an MRP of ₹340, the retailer allegedly charged him ₹360. The customer objected to the inflated price, but the shopkeeper refused to adjust it, leading the customer to pay the extra ₹20 via an online transaction.
Arguing that selling a product above its printed MRP is illegal and constitutes an unfair trade practice, the aggrieved customer approached the consumer commission. He sought a refund of the overcharged amount, along with annual interest, compensation for harassment, a penalty against both the manufacturer and seller under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and legal expenses.
While the retailer failed to respond to the proceedings, the manufacturer contested the complaint. The company denied having sold the product directly to the complainant or recognizing the retailer as an authorized dealer. They also argued that they had no control over the prices charged by sellers and questioned the veracity of the ₹360 payment.
However, the two-member bench, comprising President Hasnain Qureshi and Member Purnima Singh Rajpoot, accepted the customer's evidence. An online payment record and a photograph of the cigarette packet were deemed sufficient to prove the purchase and the overcharge. The commission noted that the seller had not specifically refuted the allegations.
Crucially, the commission held the manufacturer liable for the retailer's actions. It observed that the retailer, by selling the manufacturer's product, acted as its agent, even in the absence of a formal agreement. This overcharging was explicitly described as black marketing and an unfair trade practice, making both parties responsible under consumer law.
The commission's final order directs the manufacturer and retailer to jointly refund the customer the ₹20 excess amount, along with 18 percent annual interest from the date of purchase until payment. Additionally, the complainant was awarded ₹5,000 as compensation for harassment and ₹5,000 towards litigation expenses. The most substantial part of the order mandates the joint deposit of ₹10 lakh into the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 39(1)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Both parties have been given a 45-day window to comply with the order, with a warning that failure to do so could lead to further prosecution.